Hi,
here's just some request for speculations, ideas, inofficial news, technical estimations...
Maybe a bit early cause the 21Mpix cameras are pretty recent. I own the 5D and I decided to skip the 5D Mark II and wait for the next generation. But actually I can't wait ;-)
So what do you think? Is there any room for improvement on a 35mm-sized sensor? Or is it becoming to small to handle more than 25 MPix? (36Mpix would be cool - three times more than my 5D now)
Thanks for some guesses...
If the current rebel is 15mp on aps sensor it makes me wonder exactly how much they can cram into the 35mm sensor. Seems like they will go another round all there levels of SLR's starting from the top.
Eventually they will have to create a larger sensor? Canon's research and development department is larger than Nikon as a whole. It seems like they encourage the competition just so they can crush it.
At this point, I think 21 mp is enough. What I would like to see them due to maintain the pixel count yet be able to decrease the file size. I would like less noise in the shadows at higher ISO's and better ability to handle highlights w/o compromising the shadows. Now if I could figure out how to get the HD video to autofocus that would be nice.
I've been wondering if Canon will continue the APS-H size sensor (1.3 crop factor) of the 1 series bodies. The 1D fits between the 1Ds and the 5D, costwise, but has a smaller sensor. Will the 1D Mk IV have a full frame sensor? Will the 1Ds line then be disconinued?
For the next sensor, Deitrich, I have no idea...but longer term, there's no particular reason not to go to very high pixel counts. Given the resolution and pixel size of some P&S cameras, you could easily get over 100 Mpixels on full frame, with lots of techniques to reduce/eliminate the issues with small pixels.
The reason we don't have it yet is production and development cost. You'd essentially need a whole new system of readout, and storage to handle the data and possibilities; but I'd guess that's where things are headed.
I realize no one "needs" more pixels for normal sized prints, but the things you could do with that many pixels (binning for super high ISO, easier changes to the bayer filters, super high res possible - if the lenses could handle it) are tempting.
Right now, larger pixels = better image quality, but that's somewhat a by-product of the current state of pixels and sensors. It's not an inherent truth that always needs to apply.
I have to wonder whether the market would support a "reasonably" priced DSLR with capabilities above 21 mp. At this point, it seems like the limiting factor for DSLRs is glass, not MP. And for that matter, how important shadow noise at higher ISO is, unless there is a trend for the elimination of a tripod I'm thinking compact cameras with better capabilities. And possibly prices reductions and improvements in MF digital.
I'm sure they will be able to push the MP count a little further but there will be a limit and I think we may be getting close. At some point they will get to the point where they will not be able to cram more MPs into a sensor without introducing too much to be acceptable. There is only so much you can do with software to fix the noise that the hardware creates when you push it too far. I think what some other people have said so far is entirely correct, they should be trying to reduce noise levels (especially in the shadows) before they try and increase the megapixels.
Mega pixels are way over rated and don't make as big of a difference as the camera manufacturers would like you to believe. You said "36Mpix would be cool - three times more than my 5D now" but that doesn't mean you could make a print 3 times the size, thats not how megapixels work. Lets pretend your camera resolution topped out at a 16x20 print size, doubling your megapixel count would not allow you create a 32x40 print, you would have to quadruple your megapixels to do that. You would only theoretically be able to do a 24x30 print by doubling the mega pixels and even that may still be pushing it. Personally I think there are other things the camera manufacturers should be working on before they push the megapixels further.
Hi, thanks for your opinions and ideas here.
And yes I agree it makes a lot of sense to work on the iso-performance and the pixel-quality as such. I have to say I am to this day highly impressed and satisfied with the resolution, noise performance and print quality of the 5D and I will always keep it (nostalgia, my first "serious" camera). I read somewhere that is now already considered to be a cult-camera cause it was the first "entry-level" full frame and had the best iso performance when it was introduced. I admit I am not understanding too much of this , but for me the 5D is one of the best and carefully engineered pieces. The Mpix-to-sensor-size ratio is most ideal giving that great iso-performance and based on reviews (dpreview) the 5D can still today (4 years old) compete with the iso performance with recent high-end full-frame. (So, I needed to confirm for myself that I don't need a new camera..;-)
Affordable MF-digi would also be nice, but I had in mind to use my Canon EF-lenses on a 30 to 40Mp EOS system - that would be the requirement from my side. I just recently picked up a photo-mag and the Hasselblad system is presented - 9.000 Euro for the H3DII-31 - I am not saying this is easily "affordable" but it goes into the right direction regarding price. Would be great if digi-MF prices come down to "full-frame prices" in the next 5 years (I doubt it)
I understand that megapixels are overrated, but simply needed for huge prints.
Some on this thread have pointed out that the MP available now severely tests the quality of lenses. The "pro" lenses that were previously outstanding are now sometimes downgraded to mediocre. I suggest that the two major companies, both white and dark, will begin to introduce new glass to meet the demand of the high MP sensors. However we had better get our wallets out! Imagine what it will cost to replace a standard kit of lenses - say - 17-40; 24-105; 300 f4; 500 f4? What will our old lenses be worth?
The other issue with MP is file size. I am sure the speed of CF and SD cards will be upgraded to keep up. However, keep in mind that our computers and portable hard drives will be out dated faster as MP count rises.
So, the quest for higher and higher MP count is not without its extreme downside. The ultimate dollar cost is more than the cost of a new camera body.
I almost have to wonder if it really matters what is next. Right now, the IQ we can get from the Canon 5DII and 1DsMIII is so far beyond what we had even with Velvia that 10 years ago, it was unimaginable to a 35mm based shooter. Even MF shooters would have largely been happy with the quality.
I would guess that once the 1DMwhatever reaches 20+ megapixels with 8-10fps, it is going to be pretty tough to justify another 35mm based camera, ego aside. Build, autofocus (if Canon gets that right), fps and IQ will probably exceed almost anything I can see myself needing and I am neither gentle nor undemanding of my gear.
Just like cars that now have topped out speed-wise (i.e. we don't buy cars from a dealer that do 527mph), I think we hit the area we wanted to be for 35mm-sized sensors. Cram any more than 25MP on that size of a sensor and the light capture will work against you. Do we need bigger? Nahhhh, if we didn't print we could live with 8mp-12mp (still giving us latitude for cropping). With printing, the 21mp monsters can make murals. Stitch 6 or 7 shots together and your panorama can be measure in FEET. For DSLRs, it's time to refine the package: built-in wireless and Bluetooth, GPS, ISO 6400 with no noise, 7fps standard, and now that video is here, let's drop the Microsoft FAT32 format that our CF cards use, so we can get more than 4GB of video at one time (right, that limitation isn't Canon's fault).
Ultimately, we have gotten to a level where the equipment is incredible, surpassing film in so many ways. Photoshop and Lightroom are mind-blowingly feature-packed, giving us things that the masters of the past would drool over. That means we can all stop concentrating on the gear and the technology finally(and I'm preaching this to myself the LOUDEST) and focus on using it now to create wonderful images. Forget the megapixels and all the rest of it now, we've GOT megapixels, coming out our ears. The digital camera is now incredible in what it can do. So, let's go SHOOT.
Thanks for all the thoughts - good to have some a different weighing of some aspects. I guess one really has to stay rational with the resolution. I guess the whole thing comes from the desire of our minds to see the same level of detail as we see when we are "out there". Humans have weak minds and bad eyes compared to other mammals, but yet still resolve so much better than any technology can give to date. I think as long as this is not reached there will always be the desire to increase detail and resolution.
The growth of quality sensors is now pressing optic limits. The price to capture that last remaining bit of light will be 100,000x more than the first. This suggests two options...at the minimum....mf....bigger sensors and larger glass...but heavy and costly. Option two and what will prolly be the next evolution will be to model the simplicity of the eye...simpler optics...fewer pieces of glass. Combine this w/a dish shaped sensor....like the back of the eye. Abandon the flat sensor...the medical field is starting this revolution. This would be like having a pin-hole camera w/ a dish sensor. A camera the size of a styrofoam cup that fits in the palm of your hand w/500 mb capacity.
Discussion
16 replieshere's just some request for speculations, ideas, inofficial news, technical estimations...
Maybe a bit early cause the 21Mpix cameras are pretty recent. I own the 5D and I decided to skip the 5D Mark II and wait for the next generation. But actually I can't wait ;-)
So what do you think? Is there any room for improvement on a 35mm-sized sensor? Or is it becoming to small to handle more than 25 MPix? (36Mpix would be cool - three times more than my 5D now)
Thanks for some guesses...
Dietrich
This will help sports and concert shooters, and wiidlife, landscape, and street photographers who shoot at dawn and dusk.
I'll upgrade my 5D and 1DMkII when this happens, but not before..
Eventually they will have to create a larger sensor? Canon's research and development department is larger than Nikon as a whole. It seems like they encourage the competition just so they can crush it.
The reason we don't have it yet is production and development cost. You'd essentially need a whole new system of readout, and storage to handle the data and possibilities; but I'd guess that's where things are headed.
I realize no one "needs" more pixels for normal sized prints, but the things you could do with that many pixels (binning for super high ISO, easier changes to the bayer filters, super high res possible - if the lenses could handle it) are tempting.
Right now, larger pixels = better image quality, but that's somewhat a by-product of the current state of pixels and sensors. It's not an inherent truth that always needs to apply.
However, I agree with those who say enough MP already! Give us low noise and greater color depth.
Mega pixels are way over rated and don't make as big of a difference as the camera manufacturers would like you to believe. You said "36Mpix would be cool - three times more than my 5D now" but that doesn't mean you could make a print 3 times the size, thats not how megapixels work. Lets pretend your camera resolution topped out at a 16x20 print size, doubling your megapixel count would not allow you create a 32x40 print, you would have to quadruple your megapixels to do that. You would only theoretically be able to do a 24x30 print by doubling the mega pixels and even that may still be pushing it. Personally I think there are other things the camera manufacturers should be working on before they push the megapixels further.
And yes I agree it makes a lot of sense to work on the iso-performance and the pixel-quality as such. I have to say I am to this day highly impressed and satisfied with the resolution, noise performance and print quality of the 5D and I will always keep it (nostalgia, my first "serious" camera). I read somewhere that is now already considered to be a cult-camera cause it was the first "entry-level" full frame and had the best iso performance when it was introduced. I admit I am not understanding too much of this , but for me the 5D is one of the best and carefully engineered pieces. The Mpix-to-sensor-size ratio is most ideal giving that great iso-performance and based on reviews (dpreview) the 5D can still today (4 years old) compete with the iso performance with recent high-end full-frame. (So, I needed to confirm for myself that I don't need a new camera..;-)
Affordable MF-digi would also be nice, but I had in mind to use my Canon EF-lenses on a 30 to 40Mp EOS system - that would be the requirement from my side. I just recently picked up a photo-mag and the Hasselblad system is presented - 9.000 Euro for the H3DII-31 - I am not saying this is easily "affordable" but it goes into the right direction regarding price. Would be great if digi-MF prices come down to "full-frame prices" in the next 5 years (I doubt it)
I understand that megapixels are overrated, but simply needed for huge prints.
Thanks - keep the input coming!
Dietrich
The other issue with MP is file size. I am sure the speed of CF and SD cards will be upgraded to keep up. However, keep in mind that our computers and portable hard drives will be out dated faster as MP count rises.
So, the quest for higher and higher MP count is not without its extreme downside. The ultimate dollar cost is more than the cost of a new camera body.
We don't have to speculate. It's the 24-25MP Nikon, already on the market, which apparently also far out autofocuses anything from Canon.
I would guess that once the 1DMwhatever reaches 20+ megapixels with 8-10fps, it is going to be pretty tough to justify another 35mm based camera, ego aside. Build, autofocus (if Canon gets that right), fps and IQ will probably exceed almost anything I can see myself needing and I am neither gentle nor undemanding of my gear.
Ultimately, we have gotten to a level where the equipment is incredible, surpassing film in so many ways. Photoshop and Lightroom are mind-blowingly feature-packed, giving us things that the masters of the past would drool over. That means we can all stop concentrating on the gear and the technology finally(and I'm preaching this to myself the LOUDEST) and focus on using it now to create wonderful images. Forget the megapixels and all the rest of it now, we've GOT megapixels, coming out our ears. The digital camera is now incredible in what it can do. So, let's go SHOOT.
Paul - yeah your're so right about this
Thanks for the input,
Dietrich